State and Corporation
2005.06.28 4:56

Through modernisation a state appeared to be the only absolute power in the 19th century, and kept on being called what is 'public'. Multinational corporations, on the other hands appeared to be super powers in the late 20th century, but still remained to be 'private'. Recent scotus ruling on Kelo affairs might enable multinational corporations to claim public status what only a state used to exercise.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
State and Corporation Preferences Top 5 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 5 comments 0: 5 comments 1: 5 comments 2: 3 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
True, and this is a great danger(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.06.29 2:28 (#12933264) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
Since the State has a duty to it's citizens- but a mega-corporation only has a duty to it's stockholders. The people the megacorporation hurts is a different set of people than those who own it- unlike the state. For the State, this sets up a conflict of interest that prevents the worst abuses of power- but for a corporation, as long as it is profitable in the short term, there is no other conflict of interst.--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both!
Re:True, and this is a great danger(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.06.29 6:47 (#12936114) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Since the State has a duty to it's citizens- but a mega-corporation only has a duty to it's stockholders
The State only has a duty to its taxpayers primarily but also has a duty to those who don't afford to pay taxes or just refuse to pay taxes, the State cannot prevent us from using state facilities state owned organisations only because we don't pay tax. That's where the meaning of 'public' lies. 'public' means or suggests 'everyone' can use or is beneficial from it.
On the other hands, a mega corporation has a duty to its shareholders, but also to local customers, communities too. Those who are beneficial are the general 'public', not only the shareholders.
As the role of megacorporation increase more and more, they are not only selling their commodities they come up with but also other services that only government could provide us in the past.
I think the more the role of megacorporations owe increase, the less the danger private corporations tend to fall in - for the shareholder's sake not for the general 'public' would minimise.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:True, and this is a great danger(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.06.29 8:55 (#12937161) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
Actually, the larger the megacorp gets, the more danger there is that they will forget about the general public in search of what is profitable only. The reason is obvious: Market Share and Competition are inversely porportional- the more market share a corporation has, the less competition the corporation has. And thus, the fewer choices the consumer has. The classic case of this is Wal*Mart in the 1990s- as they took market share in new towns, smaller competitors such as K-Mart and downtown shops closed, leaving Wal*Mart as the ONLY shopping choice in many towns in America. People lost their jobs, Wal*Mart became the only employer- a defacto monopoly- lowering wage rates and throwing the working class citizens onto public assistance. A smaller company would not have been able to do that- because they would quickly lose too much market share to survive. But Wal*Mart can use trade agreements with China and loss leader predatory marketing to survive- and so they beat out the smaller companies.--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both! [ Parent ]
Re:True, and this is a great danger(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.06.30 0:30 (#12941659) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Through the formation of modern capitalism, kinds of oligarchy was inevitable, it was true mega corporations ate what was supposed to be a share of smaller competitors. They survived because they always thought about what the general public really wanted instead of thinking about profit only.
Let me give you an example. About twenty years ago, still Kroger was dominant in retailors industry, almost all big retailors were seeking for their premises in a city centre or near site to main commercial district, there the rent of land, builing was very high, but many sought so because they didn't have to think about how to collect their customers.
One company was different. They took a look at suburbs no one is eager to visit, there were usually hills or just waste land, they developped the land, arranged for shopping mall, wide space for cars to park, wide enough for customers to look around, even they had a limousine to transport local people to shop. The site shopping malls are located was a suburb, it was far from one commercial centre and also far from another commercial centre, but it turned out to be an another bigger more convenient shopping centre - that's what a new master did.
Only those who seriously seek for what really customers want survive, and in the current world not only one but also five or six such large corporations to have some market shares. The world right now is devided by kinds of oligarchies, not monopoly.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:True, and this is a great danger(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.06.30 4:36 (#12944026) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
But- as the old phrase from the Highlander movies go- in the end there can be only one. Oligarchies are merely a stage- and REAL capitalism prevents them from ever starting. Oligarchies are just as anti-capitalist as monopolies are- and as the Soviet-style communism was. It's not a good thing to have the majority of everything owned by the few- for the greatest good, you want many hundreds of corporations- maximum competition.--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both!